• Trump's 2019 budget

    From alexander koryagin@3:640/384 to All on Fri Feb 16 18:41:57 2018
    Hi, ALL!

    https://goo.gl/L3B6Vv
    or https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/13/trumps-budget-what-he-wants-eliminate-plain-english/331147002/

    President Trump unveiled his 2019 budget plan, here are five takeaways that will affect the American people.

    Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".

    Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about the US budget for 2019. I'd say "The American 2019 budget" or "The US' 2019 budget".

    Or he could write about a budget in general, like this: "An American budget -- where to know how much it could be?" ;)

    Bye, All
    Alexander

    --- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
    * Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)
  • From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to ALEXANDER KORYAGIN on Sat Feb 17 06:44:00 2018
    Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".

    Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about the US budget for 2019. I'd say "The American 2019 budget" or "The US' 2019 budget".

    It isn't "The" budget until it is approved, right? My guess is that there
    will be more than one edition before that happens.

    Mike

    ---
    SLMR 2.1a "My eyeballs nearly popped out!"
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From alexander koryagin@3:640/384 to Mike Powell on Mon Feb 19 04:59:05 2018
    Hi, Mike Powell!
    I read your message from 17.02.2018 14:44

    Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".

    Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about the US budget
    for 2019.
    I'd say "The American 2019 budget" or "The US' 2019 budget".

    It isn't "The" budget until it is approved, right? My guess is that there will be more than one edition before that happens.

    Well, well. :) Thanks.

    Bye, Mike!
    Alexander Koryagin
    ENGLISH_TUTOR 2018

    --- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
    * Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Mike Powell on Wed Feb 21 15:21:12 2018
    Hi & welcome, Mike! Recently you wrote in a message to ALEXANDER KORYAGIN:

    Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".

    Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about the
    US budget for 2019. I'd say "The American 2019 budget" or
    "The US' 2019 budget".

    It isn't "The" budget until it is approved, right? My
    guess is that there will be more than one edition before
    that happens.


    Thankyou... I was hoping we'd get some input from the States. As a Canadian I would call this document a draft or preliminary version of the 2019 budget, and a news reporter might call it Trump's proposed budget. But I have no idea whether its official title departs from established US custom.... :-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to ARDITH HINTON on Thu Feb 22 18:51:00 2018
    Thankyou... I was hoping we'd get some input from the States. As a
    Canadian I would call this document a draft or preliminary version of the 2019 >budget, and a news reporter might call it Trump's proposed budget. But I have >no idea whether its official title departs from established US custom.... :-)

    I don't have a 100% clear idea, either, but I am pretty sure it is in the "proposed" stage at this point in time.

    Mike

    ---
    SLMR 2.1a I had another drink...Drink-a-drink-a-drink-a-drink...
    * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to alexander koryagin on Sat Jun 16 13:37:34 2018
    Alexander Koryagin asked:

    President Trump unveiled his 2019 budget plan, here are
    five takeaways that will affect the American people.

    Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".

    Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about
    the US budget for 2019. I'd say "The American 2019
    budget" or "The US' 2019 budget".

    I think Trump implies that the budget is American in spirit.
    The budget he proposes in an American one. In this sense,
    "the" would be inappropriate because, obviously, it is not
    the only possible American budget.

    ---
    * Origin: - nntp://news.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/6)
  • From alexander koryagin@3:640/384 to Anton Shepelev on Mon Jun 18 18:55:09 2018
    Hi, Anton Shepelev -> Alexander Koryagin!
    I read your message from 16.06.2018 13:37
    about Trump's 2019 budget.

    President Trump unveiled his 2019 budget plan, here are
    five takeaways that will affect the American people.

    Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".

    Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about
    the US budget for 2019. I'd say "The American 2019
    budget" or "The US' 2019 budget".

    I think Trump implies that the budget is American in spirit.
    The budget he proposes in an American one. In this sense,
    "the" would be inappropriate because, obviously, it is not
    the only possible American budget.


    I also think so. I prone to think that it was an accurate article title "Trump's 2019 budget". The book was not about 2019 budget -- I think the correct title (both for article and the book) could have been "How to plan an American budget effectively". Indeed, "2019 year" was an invention of the journalist.

    (https://goo.gl/L3B6Vv)

    Bye, Anton!
    Alexander Koryagin
    ENGLISH_TUTOR 2018

    --- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
    * Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to alexander koryagin on Mon Jun 18 17:09:34 2018
    Alexander Koryagin to Anton Shepelev:

    I think Trump implies that the budget is American in
    spirit. The budget he proposes in an American one. In
    this sense, "the" would be inappropriate because,
    obviously, it is not the only possible American budget.

    I also think so. I prone to think that it was an
    accurate article title "Trump's 2019 budget". The book
    was not about 2019 budget -- I think the correct title
    (both for article and the book) could have been "How to
    plan an American budget effectively". Indeed, "2019
    year" was an invention of the journalist.

    I should not be surprised if Trump condemned the budgets of
    Obama as unamarican.

    ---
    * Origin: - nntp://news.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/6)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to Anton Shepelev on Mon Jun 18 18:31:42 2018
    I wrote:

    I should not be surprised if Trump condemned the budgets
    of Obama as unamarican.

    * unamerican

    ---
    * Origin: - nntp://news.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/6)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to alexander koryagin on Mon Jun 18 18:56:12 2018
    Alexander Koryagin:

    I prone to think that it was an accurate article title
    "Trump's 2019 budget".

    There is no verb "to prone" (unless you have just invented
    it). I tend to think, or incline to the opiniton that...

    The book was not about 2019 budget -- I think the
    correct title (both for article and the book) could have
    been "How to plan an American budget effectively".

    I fear you cannot call a budget project a book :-)

    Indeed, "2019 year" was an invention of the journalist.

    No, not at all. It is the proposed budget specifically for
    2019.

    ---
    * Origin: - nntp://news.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/6)
  • From alexander koryagin@3:640/384 to Anton Shepelev on Tue Jun 19 03:57:15 2018
    Hi! Anton Shepelev -> Alexander Koryagin!
    I read your message from 18.06.2018 18:56

    I prone to think that it was an accurate article title
    "Trump's 2019 budget".

    Ah, "I am prone to think". Although, recently, somebody told me here that "to be" could be omitted when things are clear without it. ;-)

    There is no verb "to prone" (unless you have just invented
    it). I tend to think, or incline to the opiniton that...

    It is also correct, I think.

    The book was not about 2019 budget -- I think the
    correct title (both for article and the book) could have
    been "How to plan an American budget effectively".

    I fear you cannot call a budget project a book :-)

    Have you seen the book photograph at the URL I provided? (no "to be" again before "provided").

    Indeed, "2019 year" was an invention of the journalist.
    No, not at all. It is the proposed budget specifically for
    2019.

    ;-) IN this case it should have been "It is _a_ proposed budget specifically for 2019". Probably, because they can have another budget draft, for instance from the Congress.

    Bye, Anton!
    Alexander Koryagin
    ENGLISH_TUTOR 2018

    --- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
    * Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Anton Shepelev on Wed Jun 20 00:16:35 2018
    Hi, Anton! Recently you corrected one of your earlier messages as follows:

    I should not be surprised if Trump condemned the
    budgets of Obama as unamarican.

    * unamerican


    Yes, that is an improvement. I would suggest a further improvement, however, which takes into account that the word "American" usually begins with an upper-case "A" in English. My CANADIAN OXFORD DICTIONARY & my RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER'S get around the issue of whether or not to capitalize "American" in a situation where a prefix is used by spelling the above "un-American".... :-))




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to alexander koryagin on Mon Jun 25 00:06:02 2018
    Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Anton Shepelev:

    I prone to think that it was an accurate article title
    "Trump's 2019 budget".

    Ah, "I am prone to think".


    Uh-huh. I tend to think Alexander will see such errors for himself if I just sit back & wait awhile... as he did there. As Anton has pointed out "prone" is not a verb. OTOH "tend" is, so the rules are a bit different. :-)



    Although, recently, somebody told me here that "to be"
    could be omitted when things are clear without it. ;-)


    Sometimes, as in "He thought it rather strange that there was a car hanging from the underside of the Granville Street Bridge." The repetition of "was" in such cases would sound unnecessary at best to many native speakers of English. One must be careful, however, not to read too much into what one has been told about xxx and/or (to) assume (that) the same applies to yyy.... :-)



    I tend to think, or incline to the opiniton that...

    It is also correct, I think.


    While I see a typo in "opinion", I'm content with the grammar. ;-)



    I fear you cannot call a budget project a book :-)

    Have you seen the book photograph at the URL I provided?
    (no "to be" again before "provided").


    I'd be more inclined to call it a document, but in this part of the world some proposed legislation could easily fill a book... [wry grin].

    Now, as for the grammar... "I provided" is correct. You could have said "which I provided", but "which" is optional in such situations. The only reason I can think of offhand for using "to be" with a transitive verb such as "provide" is that you are using the passive voice because you don't want to go into detail or because you don't know who did whatever. Dallas & I have found ourselves asked to attend meetings, e.g., where "lunch will be provided". One might also say "Mrs. Smith's car has been stolen" for similar reasons.... :-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to Ardith Hinton on Tue Jun 26 12:42:52 2018
    Ardith Hinton wrote:

    Sometimes, as in "He thought it rather strange that
    there was a car hanging from the underside of the
    Granville Street Bridge." The repetition of "was" in
    such cases would sound unnecessary at best to many
    native speakers of English.

    I don't think it either an elision or an exception. It is a
    perfectly valid grammarical construction with verbs
    "consider", "think", "deem", &c. Trowest not thou so?

    ---
    * Origin: - nntp://news.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/6)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to Anton Shepelev on Tue Jun 26 12:45:36 2018
    I wrote:

    It is a perfectly valid grammarical construction

    s/b.: grammatical.

    A little more attention won't harm me at all at all.

    ---
    * Origin: - nntp://news.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/6)
  • From alexander koryagin@3:640/384 to Ardith Hinton on Tue Jun 26 22:08:44 2018
    Hi, Ardith Hinton -> Alexander Koryagin!
    I read your message from 24.06.2018 16:06
    about Trump's 2019 budget.

    Although, recently, somebody told me here that "to be" could be
    omitted when things are clear without it. ;-)

    Sometimes, as in "He thought it rather strange that there was a car hanging from the underside of the Granville Street Bridge." The
    repetition of "was" in such cases would sound unnecessary at best
    to many native speakers of English. One must be careful, however,
    not to read too much into what one has been told about xxx and/or
    (to) assume (that) the same applies to yyy.... :-)

    I was trying to hide my lapse behind the joke. :)

    I tend to think, or incline to the opiniton that...
    It is also correct, I think.

    While I see a typo in "opinion", I'm content with the grammar. ;-)

    Anton prefers errors instead of a spell checker. ;)

    I fear you cannot call a budget project a book :-)

    Have you seen the book photograph at the URL I provided? (no "to
    be" again before "provided").

    I'd be more inclined to call it a document, but in this part of the
    world some proposed legislation could easily fill a book... [wry
    grin].

    Now, as for the grammar... "I provided" is correct. You could have
    said "which I provided", but "which" is optional in such
    situations. The only reason I can think of offhand for using "to
    be" with a transitive verb such as "provide" is that you are using

    As for "no to be" it was a senseless addition from my side. Probably, I was sleepy. And I was also too lazy to write another message with an explanation of
    another lapse of mine. ;)
    <skipped>

    Bye, Ardith!
    Alexander Koryagin
    ENGLISH_TUTOR 2018

    --- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox
    * Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to alexander koryagin on Tue Jun 26 15:19:18 2018
    Alexander Koryagin:

    Anton prefers errors instead of a spell checker. ;)

    Wrong. I prefer *typos* *to* a spell checker :-)

    ---
    * Origin: - nntp://news.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/6)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Anton Shepelev on Mon Jul 9 20:40:31 2018
    Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

    Sometimes, as in "He thought it rather strange that
    there was a car hanging from the underside of the
    Granville Street Bridge." The repetition of "was"
    in such cases would sound unnecessary at best to many
    native speakers of English.

    I don't think it either an elision or an exception.


    Yes, there's another example. And yes, because the implied "(to) be"
    is a linking verb in this context the same construction works with both nouns &
    adjectives... and with some participles which also function as adjectives:

    Consider it done!
    I deem it an honour and a privilege to...
    I count myself fortunate (in) that...



    It is a perfectly valid grammarical construction
    |[typo alert!]

    with verbs "consider", "think", "deem", &c.


    Trowest not thou so?


    Aye, forsooth.... :-))




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)